The emerging economy is opening up new ways to reconnect workers to their work
and the profits from their work.

One of the most striking blind spots in our collective
angst over the lack of jobs is our apparent disinterest in the nature of work and
how work creates value.
This disinterest is reflected in a number of conventional assumptions.

One is the constant shedding of tears over the loss of mind-numbing manufacturing jobs.
I doubt a single one of the innumerable pundits decrying the loss of "good manufacturing jobs"
spent even one shift in an actual assembly line. There is a reason Henry Ford had to
pay the then-astronomical salary of $5 per day to his assembly-line workers: the work
was so physically demanding and boring that workers quit after a single shift. The only
incentive that would keep people doing such hellish work day in, day out, was a big paycheck.

After the success of the moving assembly line, Henry Ford had another transformative idea:
in January 1914, he startled the world by announcing that Ford Motor Company would pay
$5 a day to its workers. The pay increase would also be accompanied by a shorter
workday (from nine to eight hours). While this rate didn't automatically apply to
every worker, it more than doubled the average autoworker's wage.

While Henry's primary objective was to reduce worker attrition--labor turnover from
monotonous assembly line work was high--newspapers from all over the world
reported the story as an extraordinary gesture of goodwill.

Another is the confusion over what constitutes the means of production in
a knowledge economy. The term means of production has its origins in Marx's
analysis of capitalism, but the means of production change along with the processes
of creating value.

As a result, Peter Drucker identified the worker's knowledge (human capital)
as the means of production in a knowledge economy in his book
Post-Capitalist Society.

Many readers have misunderstood Drucker's point; their objections include 1) the software
workers use is essentially owned by Microsoft and other corporations; 2) only corporations
have the means to use workers' knowledge and 3) means of production is an outdated
Marxist term that is being mis-used by Drucker.

These objections miss the point. A skilled knowledge-worker can create $100,000
of value with a $500 PC and $300 of software. What percentage does the software
represent of the output ($100,000)? Not even 1%.

As for corporations being the only owners of capital who can deploy workers' knowledge,
millions of self-employed people suggest that this blanket statement is not entirely true.
Yes, enterprises that deploy billions of dollars in material capital (oil drilling rigs,
shipyards, etc.) cannot be replaced by the self-employed, but what percentage of the
economy requires billions of dollars in capital to operate? In a service-dominated economy,
capital-intensive industries are a shrinking slice of the pie.

Rather than focus on employment, why don't we examine the nature of work? Why don't
we ask how work creates value in a knowledge economy that is commoditizing/automating whatever
labor can be commoditized/automated? How about asking if work can be re-shaped to
become meaningful beyond the paycheck being earned?

Let's review the idea that work that isn't controlled and owned by the workers is
inherently alienating.

In Marx’s view, workers were alienated from the product of their work because they did
not own the product or control the means of production. Marx argued that the absence of
ownership and control was also an absence of agency (control of one’s destiny) and meaning.
Workers were estranged from the product of their work, from other workers and from
themselves, as the natural order of the product of work belonging to the one who produced
it was upended by capitalism.

Marx characterized this separation of work from ownership of the work and its output
as social alienation from human nature. Capitalism, in his view, did not just reorder
production into enterprises whose sole goal was profit and accumulating more capital; it
destroyed the natural connection between the worker, the processes of work and the
product of his work.

Marx was thus one of the first to analyze work not just in terms of economic output
but in social and psychological terms.

This tradition was carried on by writers such as Eric Hoffer, who saw work as the source
of life’s meaning, and Christopher Lasch, who saw the rise of consumerism as the basis
of meaning and the rootless cosmopolitanism of the modern economy as the source of a
culture of narcissism. For Lasch, the relentless commoditization of life disrupted the
natural social relations of family, social reciprocity and the workplace, depriving
individuals of these sources of meaning and replacing them with an empty consumerism that
worshipped fame and celebrity.

The marketplace's commoditization of everyday life--both parents working all day for
corporations so they could afford corporate childcare, for example--created two alienating
dynamics: a narcissistic personality crippled by a fragile sense of self that sought
solace in consumerist identifiers ( wearing the right brands, etc.) and a therapeutic
mindset that saw alienation not as the consequence of large-scale, centralized
commoditization and financialization but as individual issues to be addressed with
self-help and pop psychology.

In Lasch’s view, both of these dynamics ignored the loss of authenticity that
resulted from the commoditization not just of production but of every aspect of
everyday life. In this sense, Lasch’s social analysis is an extension of Marx’s
original insight into the alienating dynamics of commoditized wage-work, in which
workers and their work were both interchangeable.

Lasch’s analysis brings us to the source of modern alienation: it’s not just
employees who are interchangeable--employers are equally interchangeable. The
interchangeability of work, employees, employers, products and services is the key
characteristic of commoditization.

What is the takeaway for those seeking a job or career? There are several takeaways.

One is that the sources of value creation are linked to the level of agency
(control of one’s work) and ownership of the work: work that is not process-based
(i.e. that cannot be commoditized) and that is experientially sensitive to mastery
enables a higher level of agency and ownership because the worker owns the means of
production--his human and social capital.

The second is that the dramatic lowering of barriers to education and the ownership
of tools powered by the Internet has greatly expanded the opportunities to escape an
alienating dependence on the state and cartels for employment and on superficial
consumerism for meaning.

If we trust networks rather than states or corporations for our security, we
automatically gain agency (control of our work and lives) and an authentic sense of
self gained from owning our work and the results of our work.

It is important to understand that corporations exist to make a profit and accumulate
capital, for if they do not make a profit and accumulate capital they will bleed
capital and disappear. To believe that organizations dedicated to making a profit could
magically organize society in ways that benefit every participant is nonsense.
Corporations organize labor and capital to accumulate capital. It is absurd to expect
that such organized self-interest magically optimizes the social order.

This is not
to blame all the ills of society on corporations; it is simply to note that corporations
are limited by their limited purpose. Their purpose is not to organize a healthy,
sustainable economy; it is to organize labor and capital in such a way that the
corporation can accumulate capital in a marketplace controlled by supply and demand.

Corporations have profited greatly from the alienation of work and the social order,
as narcissistic debt-based consumerism is a highly profitable economic order, even if
it is socially dysfunctional, unsustainable and destructive to individual agency and
meaning.

The expansion
of decentralized, distributed networks, the near-zero cost of knowledge and the
declining cost of the means of production (digital memory and processors, software,
3-D fabrication machines, robotics and tools) offer newfound opportunities for workers
to reclaim their agency and ownership of their work and output.

Rather than rely on centralized states and corporations to organize labor and
capital, collaborative networks can do so without alienating workers from their work
and disrupting the sources of meaning.

The emerging economy is opening up new ways to reconnect workers to their work
and the profits from their work. These include traditional models such as self-employment
and worker-owned cooperatives and new models of collaborative project-based work.

How do we change a dysfunctional, unsustainable and alienating system? By investing
in new ways of creating value and alternative models of cooperative work and ownership.

Get a Job, Build a Real Career and Defy a Bewildering Economy(Kindle, $9.95)(print, $20)
Are you like me?
Ever since my first summer job decades ago, I've been chasing financial security.
Not win-the-lottery, Bill Gates riches (although it would be nice!), but simply
a feeling of financial control.
I want my financial worries to if not disappear at least be manageable and
comprehensible.

And like most of you, the way I've moved toward my goal has always hinged not just on
having a job but a career.

You don't have to be a financial blogger to know that "having a job"
and "having a career" do not mean the same thing today as they did when I first started
swinging a hammer for a paycheck.

Even the basic concept "getting a job" has changed so radically that
jobs--getting and keeping them, and the perceived lack of them--is
the number one financial topic among friends, family and for that matter,
complete strangers.

NOTE: Contributions/subscriptions are acknowledged in the order received. Your name and email
remain confidential and will not be given to any other individual, company or agency.

Thank you, Willard S. ($100), for your outrageously generous contribution
to this site -- I am greatly honored by your steadfast support and readership.

Thank you, Gary R. ($100), for your extraordinarily generous contribution
to this site -- I am greatly honored by your support and readership.

"This guy is THE leading visionary on reality.
He routinely discusses things which no one else has talked about, yet,
turn out to be quite relevant months later."
--Walt Howard, commenting about CHS on another blog.

"You shine a bright and piercing light out into an ever-darkening world."
Jeremy Beck

Contributors and subscribers enable Of Two Minds to post 275+ free essays annually.
It is for this reason they are Heroes and Heroines of New Media. Without your
financial support, the free content would disappear for the simple reason
that I cannot keep body and soul together on my meager book sales alone.

Subscribers ($5/mo) and those who have contributed $50 or more annually
(or made multiple contributions totalling $50 or more) receive
weekly exclusive Musings Reports via email ($50/year is about 96 cents a week).

Each weekly Musings Report offers five features:
1. Exclusive essay on a diverse range of topics
2. Summary of the blog this week
3. Best thing that happened to me this week
4. Market Musings--commentary on the economy & global markets
5. From Left Field (a limited selection of interesting links)

I am honored if you link to this essay, or print a copy for your own use.

Terms of Service:
All content on this blog is provided by Trewe LLC for informational purposes only. The owner of this
blog makes no representations as to the accuracy or completeness of any information
on this site or found by following any link on this site. The owner will not be liable
for any errors or omissions in this information nor for the availability of this information.
The owner will not be liable for any losses, injuries, or damages from the display or
use of this information. These terms and conditions of use are subject to change at
anytime and without notice.